Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

As you may know by now, on last night's Nightline, whistleblower Russel Tice admitted to being one of the sources for the New York Times story on the NSA's warrantless wire-tapping of U.S. citizens, as admittedly approved time and again by George W. Bush. He was one of a dozen, apparently.

Tice clarified that the program in question was not simply one of the government "listening in on a few calls made to al-Qaeda," as many have tried to minimize it, but an enormous effort that resulted in "millions" of Americans having their conversations listened to in violation of the law and the Constitution. At least in Tice's opinion.

He added that "millions" of Americans have most likely been spied upon, as anyone that placed a call from the U.S. to another country has a good chance of having had the call monitored. This is not a "limited" program as Bush has been attempting to color it.

Tice has written a letter asking Congress to allow him to testify on the laws that he feels have been broken by the NSA, where, until recently, the rules were always made very clear at the agency that you don't spy on American citizens inside the country without a court order to do so first.

And now, the Justice Department is attempting to "gag order" Tice under the same "state secrets" act that they've used to gag FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds, in turn, has helped found the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition to support patriotic Americans like Tice, herself, and about 50 others in similar situations --- from both political parties.

ABC covered the Tice story at their website (with a link to Tice's letter) here.

The video of Nightline's complete report and interview with Tice is available in full here:

NOTE: Folks like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the other Administration apologists have been hard at work trying to conflate the cases of disclosure of classified information (Tice said he hasn't done any such thing, by the way) with that in the Valerie Plame case. Regular BRAD BLOG readers likely don't need this explained to them, but apparently O'Reilly and Rush and their trolling millions don't understand the difference in the two cases.

So to be clear --- Tice is reporting a crime being committed by a national security agency. Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, on the other hand, revealed classified material not to uncover a crime, but as a political weapon against someone they perceived as an opponent. Their crime was their revelation of the material itself. Period.

As James Risen, the author of the original Times piece pointed out recently to Jon Stewart (video available here from Crooks & Liars), the NSA matter is as "pure a case of whistleblowing" as one is likely to find, and the two different cases couldn't be more polar opposite to each other. No matter how much the wingnuts are trying to conflate the two.

Got it? Good! We'd rather not have to explain it again in the future. Though we have a feeling we'll have to anyway.

The best thing Tice could've done, was to go on nightline and get in the spotlight, so then we'll all know if he turns up a "suicide" (wink wink), we'll know he was knocked off by GOP operatives. Keep in the spotlight, Mr. Tice, it's in your best interest.

If anyone has a problem explaining to their winger friends the difference between the Plame identity leak and the leaking done by Edmonds, Tice, and others, here's an "gun" analogy they should be able to relate to:

Edmonds and Tice are like licensed firearm owners who shoot an armed burglar or rapist, in the act. Libby, Rove, et al are like petty thugs who use a stolen gun to shoot the tires off a sheriff's car while moving, then leave the gun at the scene in an attempt to lay blame on the innocent.

OK Mr gun owner - that false equivalence you swallowed from O'Reilly and Limbaugh just put you in the same company with serial criminals, and that guy who held up the liquor store down the block is actually a solid, upstanding citizen.

Heaven help us if average citizens of this country can't make such simple distinctions.

If anyone has a problem explaining to their winger friends the difference between the Plame identity leak and the leaking done by Edmonds, Tice, and others, here's an "gun" analogy they should be able to relate to:

Edmonds and Tice are like licensed firearm owners who shoot an armed burglar or rapist, in the act. Libby, Rove, et al are like petty thugs who use a stolen gun to shoot the tires off a sheriff's car while moving, then leave the gun at the scene in an attempt to lay blame on the innocent.

OK Mr gun owner - that false equivalence you swallowed from O'Reilly and Limbaugh just put you in the same company with serial criminals, and that guy who held up the liquor store down the block is actually a solid, upstanding citizen.

Heaven help us if average citizens of this country can't make such simple distinctions.

Hypothetical question: Let's say a U.S. Government determined "suspicious" someone calls me from overseas (as opposed to me calling someone overseas). Am I in this case also liable to have my phone tapped according to these new "rules"?

I ask only because I did recieve some, now that I'm thinking of it, bogus overseas calls (2 of them) last year. I say bogus because my message machine message would/should have clued this non-English speaking person in to the fact that they had the wrong number. Yet this person called twice, weeks apart. Both times leaving a lengthy foreign-language message.

And as fate would have it, the FBI visited me recently on the pretext of screening a former neighbor as a prospective employee for an "extremely high position within the FBI requiring "high level clearance."

Now, if the person they were inquiring about didn't happen to have been employed at a temp agency doing directionless jobs for the past year, and the year prior been a door-to-door salesman of some stupid financial package, and the year prior been a day-trader...all of which culminated in a nervous breakdown of sorts, I might have taken the FBI agent seriously...(Like how did this application get this far?)

So now I'm just wondering, hypothetically of course, if they can have a bogus person call a U.S. Citizen from overseas in an effort to make a "case" for these new phone tapping or other surveillance "rules".

Of course I think my situation is purely coincidental but it did let me imagine that there is a way for the government to "set one up" for a tapping - at their whim.

Exactly. Basically the agency doing the spying has a bank of phones and phone users in another country. Say Afganistan or Iraq. These are fake terrorists used simply as a decoy or seed.

These seeders make calls to targets in the US. When the calls are made this "gives the agency grounds" to make a request to FISA to spy on the American who was called.

That is the problem when there are no checks and balances. The FISA court requires the regime to make a reasonable showing before they approve the spying. There are ways to get around it, and the FISA court now knows that the regime has been deceiving the court.

Basically they ignore the court now, as the prez confirmed, to avoid any questions from the court. This way they make a giant smokescreen and can spy on any american anywhere anytime they want to. They don't even bother with the FISA court.

Hitler would have had an orgasm over such a set up. So would the NAZI gestapo. There has never been a greater spy mechanism in all human history.

Miss Persistent, you make some very valid points. I find it very strange that you would get not one, but two such phone calls. I can tell you this for fact. When a person is in the process of obtaining a clearance at any level, investigators do indeed talk to there neighbors.

I admire Tice and wish him well. Whistleblowers need police protection now. Sibyl Edmonds on her site http://www.JustACitizen.comhas a petition to ungag and release the redacted testimony to the 911 Commission and has links to her Government Whistleblower group.

Brian Williams, the main man for NBC news joined Don Imus this morning and was talking about the Alito nomination when the subject of Joe Biden came up. Brian couldn't pimp the NRO quick enough in his response to Don-and to top it all off he didn't even know WTF he was talking about. Don looked as surprised as I did with his response-you'll see here.

emailer GT: Williams said with these bloggers now you have to be on your toes. Joe Biden made a point about his daughters and ivy league schools and then the National Review...

Video-WMP Video-QT (rough transcript)

Imus: Well what was the issue.

Williams: Well, he (Biden) was talking about Ivy league schools at the hearings and the National Review had video refuting what he said with an earlier statement. I mean this Joe Biden thing was just UNBELIEVABLE! (emphasis by Brian Williams).

Imus: Well what did he (Biden) say about Ivy league schools initially?

Williams: Well, um..., I am not sure exactly but whatever point he had the National Review put up an immediate counterpoint.

Imus: Counterpoint to what?

Williams: Well, I am sorry. I don't have that. Maybe you can get your crack staff over there to find it out.

Imus: Well, geez, you have just completely lost... us here this morning.

Yes Brian, you should have taken your own advice and stayed on your toes. Why is Williams quoting the NRO at all? Media Matters has noted his proclivity to shill for the Republican party, I mean who can forget his "ode" to Rush Limbaugh, but this was beyond the pale.

So far this week has turned into one big circle jerk of republican talking points for Alito and the fact that Brian Williams brought up the NRO as a resource tool without even knowing the story seals the deal.

It's no accident that the Kate O'Beirne's are given endless airtime to interject their extremist-right wing ideas into your TV sets without any opposition-while Amy Goodman has to sit back on the sidelines. For a laugh go and read Jesus General's Amazon review of Kate's book.

Please sign STOP ALITO PETITIONS:http://www.usalone.com/alito.phps
In the wake of even more revelations of unchecked presidential power, many are looking to our Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of what a chief executive can get away with.This makes the next nomination that much more critical. Should Bush be permitted to install another vote to consolidate his power grab?

The one click form on this page will send your personal message to both your Senators, with your vote on the the question "Should Sandra Day O'Connor's Replacement be More Right Wing?" At the same time it will send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper, if that option is selected below. If you need more information to help make a decision,

Below is the text of the petition you are signing - please spread the word about this effort in the Senate as widely as possible.

Dear Senators,
The Senate must reject President Bush's attempt to reward right-wing special interests by nominating Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States. Alito's record as an ideological activist would make his confirmation a threat to civil rights protections, reproductive and privacy rights, environmental protections, religious liberty, and laws safeguarding workers.

I urge you to vote not to confirm Samuel Alito to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Links to previous diaries, today's sample form letter to send to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and contact information for the

Senators below the fold...

Here are the links to the previous Daily Justice Diaries:

Day One - Balance of Power in Government
Day Two - Age Discrimination/FMLA
Day Three - Judicial Ethics
Day Four - Needs of the Disabled
Day Five - Roe v. Wade
Day Six - Separation of Church and State
Day Seven - Freedom of Religion
Day Eight - Old Boys Club
Day Nine - Equality Under the Law
Day Ten - Gender Discrimination
Day Eleven - Corporate Interests

Continuing Action: After the Diary for Day 12 is available, print each diary and make booklets to hand out from December 23rd to January 9th."

The only people in an arguement who say the words "unAmerican" or "unPatriotic", are rightwingers. These words are exclusive to them. Did you EVER hear anyone, besides a rightwinger/conservative/Republican, use the words "unAmerican" or "unPatriotic"??? I have not...it's soooooooo old and it doesn't work, and when they say "unAmerican", "unPatriotic", or use Clinton, Carter, etc....in an arguement, THEY ARE ADMITTING THEY LOSE, AND THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUEMENT!

You should be very careful about speaking that way about the president. So, he spied on millions of people without a warrant; that doesn't mean he doesn't have the power to label you an "enemy combatant", kidnap you, render you to Egypt (or somewhere equally horrendous), have you tortured and finally killed.

The title of the viedo story claims that Tice revealed "Illegal NSA Wiretaps". What court has determined that Bush violated any law. Bush and the AG claim that Article II, the war powers act and the 9/11 legislation give such power to the Chief Executive.

This matter is for the courts to decide unless you advocate a society without courts or one in which anything can be determined illegal based on the political view you hold.

As for Mr. Tice he deserves his day in court also. I for one hope he gets just that.

Article II, war powers, 9/11 legislation - these things did not anoint Bush a King.

You cannot say simultaneously that they violated the law but did nothing wrong. I think we've been over this a little over 30 years ago.

The administration portrays the issue as one of wiretapping al qaeda suspects, period. What they ignore is the "warrantless" and "american citizen" part. NSA wiretapping may be within their "Authority" - doing so warrantlessly, wrecklessly, and with such far reach is not. No matter what John Yoo says.

For Swaggs: You speak of "getting clearance" (security clearance, I assume you mean) as if the people doing the granting are necessarily honest and trustworthy. For where I sit, getting clearance is the same as having "classified information."

Both terms carry the same presumption, i.e. that a higher level of trustworthiness is required than would be enjoyed by the general population. But if the person granting the clearance is himself a crook, then the words are meaningless.

What would it mean to obtain security clearance from John Bolton? Alberto Gonzales? Gen. Miller?Karl Rove? Scooter Libby? Welcome to the Burlington Liars Club?

It is You, Jose Chung, that wants to throw away civil liberties to secret government agencies to protect yourself from the big bad dangerous brown people.

It is You, Jose Chung, who supports the chipping away of constitutional rights in the name of security from the nebulous forces of terrorism.

You, Jose Chung, are an apologist for rogue forces that wish to do away with our laws and our government.

You, Jose Chung, love Big Government.

-

Haha. If "Al-Qaeda" calls up my house.

I'll put aside for the moment the fact that surveillance has extended for beyond "Al Qaeda" and into the lives of average Americans.

"Hello?"
"Hello, this is Al. Al Qaeda. I'm calling to see if you're interested in jih..."
"I'm in the middle of eating dinner."
"Oh I see, well I w.."
"Have you people no shame?"

It's funny how "Al-Qaeda" is anything you Big Government loving security-blanket dead-enders want it to be, if it satisfies your delusional view of good vs. evil in the world.

According to you, Al-Qaeda is either a) a rag-tag band of disparate souls running around in the mountains lopping peoples heads off b) a corporation of terrorist so organized and highly funded that they have a CEO, CFO, and COO. They're either picking meat off rats and living in caves, or planning their latest attack with google earth while tuning into CNN to see which pundits are giving them aid and comfort with their fiery anti-war rhetoric. They're dumb enough to make unencrypted communications not knowing they are under surveillance, but smart enough to comb through US law and make note that its illegal to torture.

In both cases, they number in the hundreds of thousands and are so powerful that they will take over the entire planet if we don't kill each and every one of them immediately!

Now, Comrade Chung, let me answer your question. Sure! If Al-Qaeda called me up accidentally after misdialing your number, I'd certainly want the proper authorities to pick up on it. Then, as a law-abiding citizen myself, I would expect them to comply with the law and go to a FISA court within the next three days or so and get the surveillance operation on the record with a judge. That way, there would be oversight on the surveillance and the agents wouldn't waste any of their time listening to MY calls, when it is TERRORISTS that they want to be listening to. It would also prevent the possibility of a terrorist using the "illegal search and seizure" defense in court.

Now, are you STILL being an apologist for wiretaps without post-approval from the FISA court?